For the first time in its 14 year history the company — which owns Welsh Water — faced a sustained critique of its stewardship of the business.

The main thrust of the investigation was that customers have been cheated of a quarter of a billion pounds in reduced bills.

CARWYN JONESTHE FIRST Minister was the only party leader to reply to our email. He said: “I’m sure Welsh Water will have taken note of the issues you raise in your article on Rebecca ...”Photo: Welsh Government

At the same time, the board of directors were rewarding themselves handsomely — taking double the amounts given to their counterparts in the publicly-owned Scottish Water.

“I am sure that Welsh Water will have taken note of the issues you raise in your article on Rebecca … ,” he said.

He added:

“Welsh Water has recently reiterated to Welsh Government their commitment to using any financial gains in the next investment period 2015-2020, which are estimated to be around £200 million, to benefit customers, either through dividends or accelerated investment.”

It turns out the company had already decided to abandon the customer dividend for this year — and may continue the policy throughout the five year period.

♦♦♦

THE BOARD of Glas Cymru hit back at Rebecca.

At last year’s annual general meeting (AGM) in Swansea in July, chairman Bob Ayling spent five minutes addressing the article’s criticisms.

The article was also discussed at an earlier board meeting.

Ayling told the meeting that the board rejected our analysis.

METEORIC MENNATHE SENIOR non-executive director of Glas Cymru is a former BBC Director Menna Richards. The £68,700 a year part-timer followed another former BBC Director Geraint Talfan Davies — her mentor and friend — onto the board of the water company. While at the BBC she helped the son of Geraint — Rhodri — up the Corporation ladder so quickly he was able to step into her shoes …Photo: PA

He defended the company’s decision to spend more on capital expenditure rather than return profits to consumers in the form of “customer dividends”.

The recession had begun, he said, and the board was happy with its decision not to resume “customer dividends” — it gave the company more room for manoeuvre.

This was generally accepted by members.

But there were rumblings of discontent about the pay of board members.

This is running at more than double the rate enjoyed by their opposite numbers at publicly-owned Scottish Water.

A member who was present — he’s asked us not to reveal his name — told us that on the issue of executive pay, Ayling:

“ … was on more shaky ground and didn’t sound convincing.”

WhenRebeccaasked the company to confirm this account of what happened at the AGM, it said:

“The event was not recorded, and as the meeting was private it would therefore be inappropriate to share any notes of the meeting.”

We replied by saying Glas Cymru was revealing less information than a company with shareholders.

In the early 1990s Rebecca bought a handful of shares in what was then a privately-owned Welsh Water as part of the research for the Channel 4 Dispatches programme “Privateers on Parade’.

Any shareholder can attend AGMs.

The Dispatches programme included the fact that the chairman of Welsh Water at that time — John Elfed Jones — had become a millionaire as a result of privatisation.

The programme played a small part in Labour’s massive £5.2 billion windfall tax on the privatised utilities in 1997.

Welsh Water simply repeated:

“… these are private meetings” :

JONES THE SALARY CHRIS JONES is one of the masterminds of Glas Cymru — and he’s been well paid for his trouble. He’s picked up nearly £4 million in salary and bonuses since the company was formed in 2001. Photo: Glas Cymru

But whatever concerns some members felt, there were no moves to cut executive pay or force the board to resume paying dividends to customers …

♦♦♦

AT THE time of the AGM last year, Welsh Water and the industry regulator Ofwat were negotiating bills for the next five years.

For the period 2015-2020 Welsh Water submitted a business plan.

It asked Ofwat to allow it to charge bills which would, by 2020, be 4 per cent below inflation.

As part of that exercise, Ofwat looked at the company’s performance over the previous five years.

If found that that company had spent an additional £234 million on capital expenditure — improving its infrastructure.

This sum is close to the £250 million Rebeccaclaims should have gone to consumers in the form of “customer dividends”.

Ofwat was not impressed — and decided to reduce the amount the company could take from customers over the next five years.

As a result, it reduced the amount Welsh Water could charge customers over the five year period by £85 million.

The company denies this deduction amounts to a penalty.

“Customer bills are lower as a result of this adjustment,” it admitted but added:

“it is a ‘reconciling adjustment’ and not a ‘penalty’.

“This is one of many adjustments to reflect that outcomes weredifferent to plans.”

“All companies have reconciling adjustments and this happens at every Ofwat review.”

An Ofwat spokesman told us:

“It might not be a penalty in the strict legal sense of the word, but it certainly penalises the company …”

“The mechanism was there to act as an incentive to make accurate investment forecasts and for companies to invest efficiently as set against our assumptions.”

In the end, the result of Ofwat’s decision — whether “penalty” or “adjustment” — is that customers will get a “customer dividend” of £85 million over five years.

Instead of the minus 4 per cent it had been asking for in the price review, Welsh Water were ordered or reduce it by another one per cent.

By 2020 bills will be five per cent lower.

At an average of £416 a year, they will still be among the highest of the ten companies serving England and Wales — only South West Water and Wessex Water are higher.

And it will still be a long way off the average bill of £376.

If Welsh Water did whatRebeccais calling for —giving a decent “customer dividend” — bills would be much closer to the average …

♦♦♦

THIS IS not the first time Ofwat has stepped in to try and protect Welsh Water customers.

In 2013 Ofwat realised its 2010-2015 price review had been too generous to the water industry in England and Wales.

In March of that year Ofwat chairman Jonson Cox — a former chief executive of Anglian Water — gave a lecture.

“Customers, particularly vulnerable customers, are having a tough time,” he said.

He noted that, across the industry, bills had risen by 7 per cent in real terms since 2005.

But, he added:

” … over the same period there have been reductions in some household incomes of as much 5 per cent.”

He noted that the water industry had enjoyed higher profits because of lower interest rates and higher inflation.

“Given that the licence relates to a long-term monopoly public service, I would have hoped that companies would have shared gains that derive from external factors with their customers …”

In October 2013 he wrote to all water companies.

“As you know,” he wrote:

“having compared the harsh pressure on customers and the generous returns to water company shareholders from macro-economic factors over recent years, I … have been banging the drum about customers and water bills for most of the last year.”

JONSON COXTHE CHAIRMAN of Ofwat called on the ten big water and sewerage conpanies in England and Wales to consider giving up all or some of their planned price rise in 2014-2015. Welsh Water was one of five companies which declined to do so …Photo: Ofwat

He asked them to consider forgoing all or part of the price increase for the year 2014-2015.

Five of the ten companies did so — ten million households got lower bills as a result.

But it was that very business model that Jonson Cox was complaining about.

He wanted them to give customers an additional reduction in 2014-2015.

We went back to Welsh Water, pointing out their reply was “circular and nonsensical.”

The company did not answer the point.

Welsh Water is also being economical with the truth in its statement about “delivering below inflation bill increases for customers thanks to our business model.”

Ofwat insisted its tough regulation was the main driver in forcing down prices at Welsh Water.

A spokesman said:

“Back in 2009, the company’s final business plan proposed that bills remain in line with inflation …

“Ofwat’s challenge saw bills reduced by 7 per cent in real terms.”

♦♦♦

WELSH WATER makes great play of the work it does to help poor and vulnerable customers.

One “member” told us the company bombards him with large amounts of material about the help it gives poor and vulnerable customers.

In its 2014 accounts the company said:

“Around 60,000 are currently receiving help to pay their bills through our social tariff …”

When we asked for financial details, the company told us:

“ … 63,000 (Winter 2014) customers benefit from a range of our social tariffs, compared to only 70,000 (April 2014) for all of the English water and sewerage companies combined.”

The reply included no figures.

We did some research and found some statistics.

We went back to Welsh Water — and this time they provided figures.

It turns out that the actual number of customers receiving financial benefit is just under 47,000.

Of these 12,000 were people in receipt of benefits: they all got the same amount — a flat £25.

The remainder — over 34,000 customers — received an average payment of £188.

REWARDS GALORE NIGEL ANNETT is another of the key architects of Glas Cymru. The company’s so-called “not-for-profit” model didn’t stop him getting a salary worthy of a major Footsie 250 business — in 2013 it was £538,000. His opposite number at Scottish Water — owned by the government — was happy with less than half that amount. When Annett stepped down as chief executive he was also awarded an CBE …Photo: PA

The total cost was just under £6.8 million.

There is no doubt that Welsh Water out-performs its rivals on this score.

But, since they all provide assistance at some level, we think the extra amount Welsh Water give is around the £5 million mark.

This is undoubtedly a benefit of the Glas Cymru structure.

But the programme doesn’t seem to be having any impact on bad debts.

In 2014 the bad debt provision — from those customers “… who choose not to pay or who are not able to pay …” — was £28 million.

That’s £1 million up on 2013.

Only a third of this money will ever be collected.

So the company still seems to have a long way to go before it meets the social needs of its poorest customers.

That’s why the “customer dividend” is so important.

At £50 million, it’s more than ten times bigger than the company’s “social dividend”.

♦♦♦

YESTERDAY WE wrote to Welsh Water telling them the thrust of this article and inviting a response.

We said our investigation suggests “the company operates for the benefit of bond-holders rather than customers.”

We said that if the company goes ahead and spends more in the next five years on additional capital expenditure than has been agreed with the regulator Ofwat:

“ … you will be overcharging customers by at least £250m.”

The company’s “response” was a long statement.

It does not answer the points we made and it is not included here — it’s attached, in full, as a note at the end of the article.

The result of spending more on capital expenditure is that the company’s “gearing” — the ratio of debt to the company’s overall value — falls.

This improves the credit rating of the £2 billion worth of bonds the company has issued.

In the early 2000s the bonus paid to directors like current chief executive Chris Jones was partly based on these credit ratings.

♦♦♦

SEVERAL TIMES this year we’ve asked Welsh Water for a list of the companies and institutions which invested £2 billion in the company’s bonds.

Each time, the company has declined to give it.

UGLAND HOUSE THE CAYMAN Islands headquarters of solicitors Maples and Calder was home to nearly 19,000 companies in 2008 — one of them the financing subsidiary of Welsh Water. The Carribean island is a tax haven — there’s no income tax and no Corporation Tax. Photo: Maples and Calder

The bonds are issued using a complex mechanism involving a subsidiary company in the tax haven of the Cayman Islands.

Because they are also listed on the Luxembourg stock exchange, they are known as Eurobonds.

The principal advantage is that Welsh Water does not have to impose a “with-holding tax” of 20 per cent on the interest.

This “with-holding tax” is a UK measure designed to prevent tax avoidance by foreign companies lending money to British businesses.

This is why we wanted to know if any of Welsh Water’s £2 billion worth of bonds were held by foreign companies.

If so, they can legally avoid paying UK tax.

Welsh Water told us, variously, that their bonds are held “primarily”, “predominantly” and “principally” by UK institutions.

These pay tax in the normal way.

But the company would not supply the full list.

Welsh Water deny that their bond operation permits tax avoidance:

“ … we have not undertaken any ‘tax avoidance’ activity.”

The company added:

“Note that the Cayman financing company was set up in advance of the purchase of Welsh Water by Glas Cymru.”

“ … Glas bought both Welsh Water and the financing company at the same time in 2001.”

“Our understanding of the commercial rationale of the Cayman financing company was that it was more cost efficient to set up the financing company in the Cayman Islands in 2001, as opposed to the higher costs of setting up a financing company in the UK.”

The first part of this statement is nonsense.

The Cayman financing company was set up a team which included the current chief executive Chris Jones.

The company’s Cayman Islands subsidiary is based at the offices of the law firm Maples and Calder.

It’s called Ugland House.

The building has been singled out by President Obama as the base of many US companies which use it to avoid tax.

PRESIDENT OBAMA CONDEMNED AMERICAN companies who used the Cayman Islands tax haven as a way of avoiding US tax. Photo: White House

In 2008 Obama — then a Senator — said:

“You’ve got a building in the Cayman Islands that supposedly houses 12,000 corporations”.

“That’s either the biggest building or the biggest tax scam on record.”

Yesterday we emailed Welsh Water to say

“the company has not been able to satisfy Rebeccathat its bond operation — using Cayman Islands and Luxembourg — is not used by some foreign entities to avoid UK taxation. “

The company did not answer the point.

Our investigation into this issue continues …

♦♦♦

IT’S CLEAR Welsh Water has abandoned the principle of a “customer dividend” — at least for this year.

There is no indication it will resume the dividend during the next four years.

GORDON “WINDFALL TAX” BROWNIN 1997 Gordon Brown was welcomed to the Treasury by Permanent Secretary Terry Burns. Brown went on to impose a massive “windfall tax” on bloated privatised utilities like Welsh Water. ironically, three years later the ennobled Burns became the first chairman of Glas Cymru, the company which bought Welsh Water in 2001. Now Rebeccais calling for a second “windfall tax” on the company …Photo: PA

Tomorrow’s AGM in Llandrindod Wells has the chance to persuade the board to change its mind.

If it doesn’t Rebecca believes the Welsh Government should consider a windfall tax on the company.

In 1990s the newly-privatised Welsh Water was an obscenely profitable business.

In 1991, for example, it made a profit of £128 million on a turnover of £287 million.

For every pound it was taking from customers, it was pocketing 45 pence in profit.

Normal business struggle to make ten per cent …

In 1997 the incoming Labour government hit the company’s owners — Hyder which also owned South Wales Electricity — with a massive £282 million “windfall tax”.

Today’s Glas Cymru is nothing like as excessive as the old privatised Welsh Water.

But consumers are still not getting the financial benefit of the so-called “not-for-profit” model.

We believe the Welsh Government should impose a windfall tax of at least £250 million on the business.

Rebecca will be writing to First Minister Carwyn Jones to ask him to consider a proposal to levy a “windfall tax” of £250 million on the company.

♦♦♦

Note

This is the full statement Welsh Water provided yesterday:

“As a company owned on behalf of our customers, our track record shows that customers are central to every decision we take and that is they who benefit from our unique business model in the industry. We are committed to providing safe and reliable services at the most affordable price.

“Between 2010-2015 our model has enabled us to return £136 million to customers by accelerating investment in our services, reducing bills and helping even more customers who genuinely struggle to pay their bills. We have also already pledged to help more than 100,000 of our most disadvantaged customers by 2020. The average household bill will also fall by £21 compared to current prices which means our customers will have benefitted from a decade of below-inflation increases by 2020.

“Customer will continue to benefit from our model and we will continue to reinvest and return value to customers – either through a customer dividend or increased investment to improve services for customers over the next five years”.

♦♦♦

DONATIONS If you would like to support the work ofRebecca, you can do so by clicking on the DONATE button.

CORRECTIONS Please let us know if there are any mistakes in this article — they’ll be corrected as soon as possible.

RIGHT OF REPLY If you have been mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let us have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory we’ll add it to the article

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 2nd, 2015 at 2:33 pm and is filed under Welsh Water. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Post navigation

3 Responses to THE GREAT WELSH WATER CONSPIRACY

An excellent piece of research and writing. As you have pointed out previously, this is a company with a total monopoly providing an essential service. So any argument for high rewards for the control board’s performance is irrelevant and in fact for the latter part untrue. Overcharging customers and creaming off the top for undeserved and obscenely high salaries for a bunch of mates is a morally repulsive strategy. It is a feeble and ineffective government that permits this to continue. Well done you on sticking at it. You are a TRUE public servant, and unpaid to boot. I’m making a donation right now.

It would seem our local water company is nothing but a well oiled, criminal, money laundering operation? (in disguise / well almost ) – In light of what happened in Panama one’s left surmising whether the criminal overlords of Welsh Water will suffer an equally humiliating fait ~ Bottoms must be twitching! ~ Quick offload & throw the swag in the river!!